About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
: that's right. this is a group of officials from the cia including the acting cia director, mr. clapper and others from the state department have been going around. they had a very long meeting on the house side for the house intelligence committee this morning. by the way, this is the one that general petraeus was supposed to be doing coming back after congress was gone and really giving them the details that they have about what happened in benghazi, why the intelligence community may have not had the correct initial information about what happened there and what they know now. that briefing on the senate side is going on as we speak. and as i mentioned, we're going to hear from the chairwoman in the ranking republican. what we do know is that they are seeing a video that was obtained from the consulate. it was a closed circuit video that intelligence officials are hoping will shed light on what really happened and why the information they had at the time may not be what it turned out to be in the end. >> dana, thanks very much. we'll have much more on this part of the story coming up
's a question, you know, we have heard about the talking points that apparently, former cia director general david petraeus testified, at least according to those who heard the testimony that the cia put out its own talking points and it was different from what was carried out by susan rice. so somewhere in the interim tsounds like there were two versions what have the cia prepared and what ended up in her hands. how do we get to the bottom of who changed them? be the big mystery that no one seems to be able to answer. somebody put their hands on the report and edited it. who was it? >> no one's admitting to that. i am not sure we are ready for a select committee. but a standing committee like homeland security, armed services need to get to the bottom of that. general petraeus is just the beginning. he showed -- he showed us that he knew it was a terroristac starks, from day 1. susan rice should have known that. and it's troubling that she did not know that. i don't know if she's not listening to her intelligence briefings, or if she doesn't do her homework, but it's troubling that she didn
on the cia talking points conflicts with testimony given by the director of national intelligence. this as senator chuck grassley presses the defendants justice and the fbi on their roles in david petraeus' extramarital affair. catherine herridge with us from the beginning. what do the conflicting statements tell us? >> reporter: thursday in a classified session, the director of national intelligence and his counterparts came to capitol hill and said they didn't know who was responsible for changess to those cia talking points that minimized the role of terrorists in the attacks. now a spokesman says the intelligence community says the intelligence communities was behind the changes that stripped out changes including al qaeda. the. lawmakers were given a completely different account of what happened. quote, chairman rogers looks forward to discussing this new explanation with director clapper as soon as possible to understand how the dni reached this conclusion and why leaders of the intelligence community testified they were unaware of who changed the talking points. this is a v
for the first time since his shocking resignation as the cia chief. what he's now telling lawmakers about the attack in libya that killed a u.s. ambassador and three other americans. wç?q9iuó >>> exactly one week after a surprise resignation as cia director, david petraeus was on capitol hill this morning. he was testifying behind closed doors. we're now hearing what he told the senate and house intelligence committees about the deadly attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. our senior congressional correspondent dana bash has been watching what's going on. what are you hearing, dana? what did petraeus have to say? >> reporter: one of the main reasons they wanted him to come here because he took a trip to libya and he hadn't had a chance to come here and brief lawmakers on. but another was to try to clear up -- i emphasize try, some confusion about intelligence especially in the days after the attack. cameras were ready before dawn hoping to catch a glimpse of david petraeus coming to brief lawmakers about the deadly attack in benghazi one week after resigning in disgrace. petr
the department of state. why would the cia, why would they lie, the narrative was al-qaeda was on its heels and when the narrative is al-qaeda is at the front door and about to kill four americans. of course they knew and scrubbed out that information so susan rice either didn't have it or didn't use it when she went on the television talk shows on sunday. >> dave: the thing i can't figure out, david petraeus on friday said that again, i knew from the start, we knew from the start it was terrorism. why in those talking points was there ever any mention of a youtube video and a spontaneous protest, if the intelligence community knew what it was, why was that ever a part of the talking points, another question we likely will not get an answer to, don't hold your breath. >> clayton: as peter king talked about yesterday, the bureaucratic way of questioning them. >> dave: getting susan rice. >> clayton: protocol, to get the answers and she may not know anyway. >> at one point in the weekly standard it says, the president says we're after an election now i think it's important for us to find out
, and who made what changes from the initial analysis done by the cia, we want to know who did what. i believe that the white house only changed one thing, and that was the word "consulate" to "mission." i do not believe that any part of the administration in the sense of the white house made any changes and we know when director petraeus came to the senate intelligence committee the day after the event and we happened to have a transcript of this, that he gave us his view that this was, in fact, a terrorist attack. but there was some reluctance of including one of the groups which was al qaeda. this is sort of a loose thing with people kind of knitting together quite possibly from three different groups, but it was an attack and there should be no doubt about that. nonetheless, susan rice has been pilloried because she did what was required of her, which was to use those talking points. so we really need to know and she is getting the blame for it and quite unfairly. >> well, she will continue to get the blame, of course, until somebody else is fingered for it, because clearly, she wa
suggesting the national intelligence director, the head of the cia, they were concocting a politically attuned story, if you will, for the u.s. ambassador to the u.n.? >> i don't know who was responsible for it. that is the thing that we are going to discover. >> they said they did it. they said it wasn't a white house decision. >> it would not be unheard up in the annals of the united states to write something to protect themselves from embarrassment. >> i want you to react to some of the assertions, the accusations that have been leveled at senator mccain, senator graham, that there's an element of sexism and even racism inner that opposition to susan rice. do you believe that? >> i know senator mccain. and i don't think he would go that low. susan rice, as i mentioned, is very qualified to hold this position if the president -- again, i don't want to prejudge what the president may or may not do with regards to susan rice. i think she has served with honor and distinction. and i'm not going to make this about anything other than if the president nominates her, i'm willing to stand b
reporting the cia is permanently closing the doors on the climate change for national security. the controversial department was set up three years ago. republicans blasting the unit as wasteful and a distraction to the agency's mission. the cia is not saying whether it was closed by budget constraints or political pressure. the agency will continue to monitor climate change and its impact to our national security but not in a stand-alone department. >>> in "the san francisco chronicle" clothing optional is not about to be an option. nudists are losing the right to bear it all. they passed a measure banning public nude did. when they passed this law, people decided to bare it all. nudists have filed a lawsuit saying the ban violates free expression rights. >> i was not aware that you can walk around like that. >> it's true, but i keep saying, it's a little chilly by the bay. >> you have to layer. in some cases, maybe not. 14 minutes past the hour. secretary of state hillary clinton wrapping up her meeting this morning with palestinian authority prime minister mahmoud abbas. the
't that the cia change? they're the ones who edited the talking points so that it wouldn't say al qaeda and i think they used the word to protect their sources, it would say extremist. they made that edit, which to me again seems to go back to the intelligence community. it's not that susan rice got a long list of talking points and said, ooh, i don't want to say al qaeda. let me cross that out. i'm going to use the word extremist. she was given talking point that is removed that word al qaeda and put extremist. isn't that correct? >> who in the administration said susan rice should be the person out there talking about this in the first place? >> so you just don't like her? >> there was the real time information -- no. the real time information that our consulate was under attack. and i'll tell you what bothers me is that someone in the white house situation room or at the state department or the pentagon said it's not worth it. we can't go in and help them. and to understand how long the attack continued, that's really troublesome. the fact that the united states cannot respond within an ho
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)